I am confused. They were clearly discussing unrealized gains as wealth throughout the article. What am I missing here?
> No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett, the grandfatherly centibillionaire. That’s perhaps surprising, given his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich.
It is clickbait, emotion inducing garbage. Buffett’s stance for higher taxes has nothing to do with the fact that he had less income than other rich people.
I expected better from ProPublica. Arguing for taxing unrealized gains is fine, but trying to make it seem like Buffett is doing something sneaky to churn emotions is bullshit writing.
1. They have a lot of unrealized gains. 2. They have losses. 3. They take out loans against those gains. I assume the play there is "I'll deal with it later (after 20 years of inflation-rate interest)." 4. They set up charities. 5. They lose money owning sports teams.
Did I miss anything?
Which lead to ever widening wealth gaps which might not be good for society, so taxing unrealized gains might be an answer.
How exactly does giving money to other people help a millionaire fund his/her lifestyle?
Surely the IRS you cannot have a charity that donates to just your family?
I wish these articles would be specific [so I can setup my own :) ].
I'm sure you don't know. No one knows or has a frame of reference. It was chosen to emphasize the narrative. It's like comparing the carbon/waste from mining, manufacturing, delivery and use of a electric car vs. the carbon from burning a tank of gas -- and saying "ah ha! the total lifetime of an EV is worse for the environment than driving around town in a gas car"